Portra 160VC: poor scans?

I have tried everything to get a decent scan out of this film using my
Konica-Minolta Dimage ScanDual IV, but it just doesn't seem to want to
play nice. Scans look really flat and devoid of contrast or fine detail.
Is this film known for this or is it just my lack of technique that's to
blame? I don't normally use colour negative, but I had this lying
around, so I thought I would try it.
--
http://www.nikongear.com/

DD

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

Sorry, I forgot to read the from header and did not realise I was preaching
to the converted. Hmm, what you say about lack of contrast seems odd.
Pete
--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk


Peter Chant

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

When scanning as negatives the Minolta software is pretty bad, when you
ask for more gain it gives you less on the channel. So in order to get
more real gain on the blue channel you have to set the gain control for
blue lower, at least this is the way it works on my Scan Dual III.
In the end I either scan as positive and invert or use VueScan.
Scott


Scott W

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

In article <1150119199.32377.0@proxy01.news.clara.net>, "Bandicoot"
<"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> says...
Negs do seem a bit thin, but I am starting to think that the film
possibly was heat damaged (I had it in my bag during the A1GP in January
and I took it out again, but never refridgerated it, so it sat in the
cupboard the whole of summer). Is it normally quite a good film? Would a
Fuji C-41 process have made any difference, you think?
--
http://www.nikongear.com/


DD

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

And make sure you haven't selected "16-bit Linear" color depth.. just the
"regular" 16-bit.


Toni Nikkanen

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

In article <shmq821e9ns776furktoo1daimr04gq9a2@4ax.com>, foo@bar.com
says...
Okay, it seems I have a huge learning curve ahead of me in scanning!
Thanks for the input Raphael, I will try it again with your suggestions
above.
--
http://www.nikongear.com/


DD

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:48:53 +0200, DD <figure.it.out@d_____d____.com>
wrote:
I don't have any experience with this particular scanner,
but I have lots of experience scanning Portra - on a
Nikon film scanner (LS-8000.) In a nutshell: it scans
just fine.
If there is any kind of analog exposure control on your
scanner, find it and learn to use it.
Barring that, make sure you use 16-bit per channel,
and set your black and white points carefully, for
each color channel individually. You will most likely
need gamma adjustments after the scan. Start by
adjusting all three channels together and finish
with individual channel adjustments, as required.
You will find that the red channel needs the least
gain, green needs more, and blue needs the most.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com


Raphael Bustin

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

In article <uusvl3-0i6.ln1@petezilla.co.uk>, pete@petezilla.co.uk
says...
I normally scan flat and tweak in Photoshop and I have had good results
with Sensia, Velvia (50 & 100) and Provia, as well as Kodak TC400BW,
Ilford XP2 and Reala.
I'm finding that there just isn't enough detail coming through on the
scan, and the images appear very grainy (too grainy for 160ISO) and in
many cases they seem to be devoid of any meaningful contrast or colour
saturation. Is this characteristic of this film?
--
http://www.nikongear.com/


DD

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

What post processing are you doing post scanning? I scan at 16 bit (or 48
bpp depending on your definition) after scanning adjust levels and curves
to suit. Raw scans can look a little flat if you don't do anything with
them.
Pete
--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk


Peter Chant

Content - Portra 160VC: poor scans?
Found 28 post(s). Page 3 of 3
| 1 | 2 | 3 |










 
Garrett Metal Detectors - Computerservice - Wellness Huren Poppen - Quill Pens
Photoshop questions